Polarized preferences versus polarizing policies

Much of contemporary political debate in the United States focuses on the issue of polarization: specifically, its causal antecedents and its consequences for policymaking and political conflict. In this article, we argue that partisan preference polarization—conventionally defined as the difference in the favored policy positions of legislators from the two major parties—is not a sufficient statistic for potential political conflict in national politics . Rather, a well-defined measure of potential conflict must take into account (1) the locations of status quo policies and proposed alternatives; and (2) the shape of underlying utility functions. We propose measures of the likely contentiousness of a given status quo policy and of a proposal to move that policy. We then demonstrate the usefulness of these measures using estimates of utility function and final passage vote parameters on enacted legislation from the 111th US Senate (2009–2011).     

Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies

Although the federal No Child Left Behind program judges the effectiveness of schools based on their students' achievement status, many policy analysts argue that schools should be measured, instead, by their students' achievement growth. Using a 10‐year student‐level panel data set from North Carolina, we examine how school‐specific pressure associated with status and growth approaches to school accountability affect student achievement at different points in the prior‐year achievement distribution. Achievement gains for students below the proficiency cut point emerge in schools failing either type of accountability standard, with the effects clearer for math than for reading. In contrast to prior research highlighting the possibility of educational triage, we find little or no evidence that failing schools in North Carolina ignore the students far below proficiency under either approach. Importantly, we find that the status, but not the growth, approach reduces the reading achievement of higher performing students. Our analysis suggests that the distributional effects of accountability pressure depend not only on the type of pressure for which schools are held accountable (status or growth), but also the tested subject. © 2010 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Comparing non-voters in the USA and Norway: permanence versus transience

Abstract. Voter turnout for the 1984 presidential election in the USA was 30 percent lower than the last parliamentary election in Norway (1985). Similarities among the factors which explains non-voting in the two nations are apparent, but the factors unique to each country are important for understanding the difference in turnout level as well as patterns of non-participation. While the Norwegian non-voters are in a transient situation where youth and limited life-cycle experience determine non-voting, factors effecting American non-voters are more permanent. In particular, if socio-economic resources are not acquired in youth, the development of political involvement and participation will be obstructed.     

Governmental policies to reduce tax evasion: coerced behavior versus services and values development

Governments generally have at their disposal two types of tax compliance policies. One set of policy options coerces tax compliance by increasing risks for practicing tax evasion, while a second set of policies emphasizes development of supportive taxpaying values among citizens through service improvement and informational strategies. Tax agencies tend to favor coercive policies, but empirical research suggests that such policies are not in themselves fully adequate to fight tax evasion. Four hypotheses are offered which suggest the utility of service and values based policies and the need for increased investment in those areas of tax administration.     

The political economy of intergovernmental grants: Evidence from a maturing democracy

We evaluate the impact of political forces in the allocation of intergovernmental grants in Portugal, as it matured from a young to an established democracy. Using a large and unexplored dataset we show that political variables condition the granting system, and that their importance changed over time. While tactical manipulation in the distribution of grants among municipalities seems to exist only in the early years of democracy, opportunistic effects are stronger in the latter years. We argue that the latter effect is due to a change in the political environment and to the electorate’s lack of information on intergovernmental grants.     

Justifying grounds for multicultural policies in Korea: universal human rights versus benefits of diversity

Multicultural policies often deviate from the principle of equal opportunity since it assumes exclusive policy target groups with extra budget and appropriate organization. If this is so, by what rationale can multicultural policies be justified? Why should we accept such unequal treatment as a procedural method to achieve a more equal society as the final goal? This paper examines justifying logic for multicultural policies that inevitably have an arbitrary aspect of state intervention. This paper first differentiates two kinds of logic, namely universal human rights and the benefits of diversity, which provide supporting rationale for the implementation of multicultural policies. We can witness from the US history that the benefits of diversity have increasingly become the main logic justifying affirmative action instead of liberal discussions on social justice and universal human rights of the 1960s. Korea also shows such a shift towards a utilitarian justification which has focused heavily on the benefits of diversity. However, the utilitarian rationalization for multicultural transition can be easily withdrawn when the benefits of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity disappear, suddenly leading to unexpected discriminatory situations. In this context, this paper argues that discussion of normative justification is required, and such discussions need to be internalized among the citizens of a political community.     

The purpose of intergovernmental councils: A framework for analysis and comparison

ABSTRACT

Intergovernmental councils (IGCs) are specific, institutionalized forums of intergovernmental relations. They provide essential horizontal and/or vertical executive channels for preparing, deciding, and implementing multilevel policies. We assume there to be variation, both across federal systems and policy domains, in the purpose they serve – from mutual influence and protection of autonomy through joint decision-making to mere exchange of information – the use that central or sub-state actors make of IGCs, as well as their effectivity. In order to map and explain such variation, this introductory article provides a framework for analysis that includes both conceptual building blocks and conjectural relationships, laying the comparative groundwork for the case studies included in this Special Issue. Findings from the case studies indicate that it is primarily the institutional architecture, but also the structure of the multilevel party system, that account for variation in the purpose and effectiveness of IGCs.     

Party mandate theory and time-series analysis: a methodological comment

In 1990 Ian Budge and Richard Hofferbert published an article in support of “the doctrine of the party mandate”, using evidence from regression analyses relating the content of postwar US party platforms and governmental outputs in terms of yearly expenditure rates. Their approach was severely criticized by Gary King and Michael Laver (1993) but has been maintained by the authors in a subsequent extension of their analysis to include data from Australia, Canada and seven European States. The present article takes issue with both the approach followed by Budge and Hofferbert and the alternative approach recommended by King and Laver. It is argued that the trend problem has not been adequately dealt with and the formalization of the mandate model lacks conceptual consistency. Three major suggestions emerge from the discussion: (1) the formal mandate model should be extended to include a “divergence term” designed to separate positive from negative mandate effects; (2) the analysis should pay closer attention to the parameter restrictions that follow from the theoretical model; and (3) the regression equations should be interpreted heuristically in terms of “cointegration” or “causal-trends” models.     

Variation in state education policies and effects on student performance

There have been few systematic studies of the effects that education policies adopted at the state level have on the quality of schooling within the state. This article, building on a framework developed by Eric Hanushek and Lori Taylor, measures the effects of state policies—in particular, the effects of state teacher certification requirements on SAT performance across states. In an examination of SAT data from 1972 to 1990, the results suggest that students in states with a master's degree requirement for teacher certification had lower SAT scores than students in states without a master's requirement. The empirical model accounts for inputs such as family background and other school factors typically used in education production functions.     

The autocratic mandate: elections,legitimacy and regime stability in Singapore

This paper explains how authoritarian regimes employ flawed elections to obtain both short-term legitimacy and long-term stability. In conjunction with the use of co-optation and repression, it argues that ruling parties hold de jure competitive elections to claim what is termed autonomous legitimation. This denotes the feigning of conformity to the established rules of the constitution and the shared beliefs of citizens. Regardless of overall turnout and support, ruling parties exploit the normative and symbolic value of elections in order to establish moral grounds for compliance within a dominant-subordinate relationship. In support of this argument, the case of Singapore's People's Action Party (PAP) is analysed in historical and contemporary terms. Since 1959, the PAP has used precisely timed elections to extract one or more mandate types from citizens and, by extension, claim legitimacy. In particular, it has sort a mandate based on its response to an event, execution of a policy and/or collection of a reward. In the long run, autocratic stability has been achieved through a process of reciprocal reinforcement, which has combined autonomous legitimation with targeted co-optation and low intensity coercion. The paper concludes by addressing the generalisability of this finding for other authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia.     

Regulatory capture in agency performance evaluation: industry expertise versus revolving-door lobbying

This study investigates the concept of bureaucratic competence. Specifically, we challenge the argument that a “careerists’ premium”—the tendency for public services run by careerists to receive better performance evaluations than services administered by other types of public managers—necessarily is explained by the superior expertise of career bureaucrats. Evidence that forms the basis of this possibility comes from performance evaluations of Korean state-owned enterprises (SOEs) managed by different types of executives between 2000 and 2015. The results of our analyses provide support for the existence of a careerists’ premium. However, we find that the premium is most salient and significant when executives had retired from the governmental agency that oversees the performance-evaluation process. Moreover, the gap between qualitative and quantitative assessment scores increase significantly when the evaluated SOEs are managed by career executives who have retired from the regulating agency. This result suggests that the oft-cited careerists’ premium may not necessarily signify careerists’ greater expertise; it may also be the product of lobbying and regulatory capture.     

Representation as a median mandate: Taking cross‐national differences seriously

The extent and ways in which popular preferences influence government policy are absolutely central to our understanding of modern democracy. Paul Warwick's discussion of these in the European Journal of Political Research in 2010 puts itself at the heart of the debate with its critique of the median mandate theory of McDonald and Budge, proposing an alternative ‘bilateralist’ concept of representation. This article questions whether this concept has much to add to our theoretical understanding of representational processes. However, Warwick's further conceptual points deserve serious consideration. These concern the time horizons within which representative processes work, and the status of the median position given multi‐motivated voting. At the evidential level, Warwick argues that survey‐based measures of voter and party left–right positions fail to produce the correspondence between median and government policy positions that median mandate theory would have us expect. However, survey‐based measures of median voter and party placements obscure important cross‐national variation. Using the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems ( CSES 2007 ), as Warwick does, this article shows that survey respondents norm their own and their country's party positions to their national context. The consequence is to make the political centre in all nations appear similar. Allowing for the relevant cross‐national differences brings the relationship between the median voter and government position back in line with expectations.